Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > March 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16773 March 30, 1965 - UP-TO-DATE SHIRT FACTORY v. SSS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16773. March 30, 1965.]

UP-TO-DATE SHIRT FACTORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee.

David G. Nitafan, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Solicitor General, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM; COMPULSORY COVERAGE; CHANGING FORM OF ORGANIZATION WITHIN TWO YEARS DOES NOT PREVENT COVERAGE. — For the purpose of computing the two-year period of business operation under Section 9 of Republic Act 1161, the conversion of a single proprietorship into a partnership within said period does not dissolve the continuity of operation of the business and does not prevent its compulsory coverage, where the evidence shows no change of the business except in the form of organization.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This is an appeal from a resolution of the Social Security Commission. Permitted by the Social Security Act, 1 it was addressed to the Court of Appeals. However, having found no factual issues, said Court certified the record to this Supreme Court.

The papers disclose that on January 22, 1958, the Administrator of the Social Security System notified the Up-To-Date Shirt Factory that it was compulsorily covered by the System, effective September 1957, and should accomplish certain blank forms in accordance with the proper instructions. The factory objected to the coverage — and did not want to pay contributions — alleging that it had not been in operation for at least two years before September 1957.

The statute applicable to the case is section 9 of Republic Act 1161, as amended, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Compulsory coverage. — Coverage in the System shall be compulsory . . . Provided That the Commission may not compel any employer to become a member of the System unless he shall have been in operation for at least two years . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The controversy was submitted in due course, to the Social Security Commission wherein both parties agreed to certain facts, the most salient of which were that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Up-To-Date Shirt Factory began its business in April 1947, after having registered in the Bureau of Commerce, 2 under the sole ownership (and management) of Kee Boc; that up to the time of submission, it is (and has been) engaged in the same nature of business and used the same business name with the same Kee Boc in charge of operation and management; that on June 17, 1958, the Up-to-Date Shirt Factory was first registered as a partnership between Kee Boc and another Chinaman.

The Commission declared that the Factory was covered. Hence this appeal.

The Factory’s position rested on the assumption that as the partnership operating it was formed only in April 1957, it could not be legally held to have been in operation for two years before September 1957.

The Social Security Commission, for the reasons explained in its Resolution, now under review (pages 40 - 44, Record on Appeal), refused to believe that the partnership had been actually formed in April 1957. It declared that the partnership was formed only in June 1958, i. e. after the coverage and liability had accrued. It pointed out that the articles had been signed only in June 6, 1958, and registered ten days later with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We agree with those reasons 3; but we do not repeat them here, because even supposing that the partnership agreement actually took place in April 1957, the situation would be: whereas the business was operated from 1947 to April 1957 by Kee Boc, it continued to be operated under one business name, and by the same Kee Boc "for the partnership", up to the submission of the controversy. As the Commission says, "the transformation of petitioner (Up-To-Date Shirt Factory) from a single proprietorship to a partnership was a painless process. The name of the establishment was not changed; the nature of the business remains the same; the assets and liabilities as well as the employees of the old firm were carried over to the new establishment. The only changes were in the form of organization and the assumption of a new personality. There was not even attempt to dissolve the former entity and to transfer its assets and liabilities to Petitioner by positive act. All that was done was for petitioner (partnership) to enter into the management of the business in place of its predecessor."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the circumstances, our opinion and views in Laguna Transportation Co. Inc. v. Social Security System, l-14606, April 28, 1960, must be applied. There we held that, for the purpose of computing the statutory two-year period (of business operation), the conversion of a partnership into a corporation does not dissolve the continuity of operation, where the evidence shows no change of the business, except in the form of organization. In that case, the transportation company argued that the years it had been functioning as a partnership should not be tied to the years it operated as a corporation. That contention we rejected, explaining through Mr. Justice Barrera that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To adopt petitioner’s argument would defeat, rather than promote, the ends for which the Social Security Act was enacted. An employer could easily circumvent the statute by simply changing his form of organization every other year and then claim exemption from contribution to the System as required, on the theory that, as a new entity, it has not been in operation for a period of at least 2 years. The door to fraudulent circumvention of the statute would, thereby, be opened."cralaw virtua1aw library

For these reasons, we conclude that the Up-To-Date Shirt Factory has been in operation for at least two years prior to September 1, 1957.

ACCORDINGLY, the resolution of the Social Security Commission must be, and is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 5, Republic Act 1161, as amended.

2. Under Act 3883 — Business Names Law.

3. Moreover, if Kee Boc had a partner in April 1957, he violated the Business Names Laws. Act 3883 as amended by Act 4147.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24022 March 3, 1965 - ILOILO PALAY AND CORN PLANTERS ASSO., INC., ET AL. v. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16601 March 24, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES v. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20509 March 24, 1965 - LESME BAQUILOD, ET AL. v. MARCELO M. BOBADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18351 March 26, 1965 - CHOY KING TEE v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-18753 March 26, 1965 - VICENTE B. TEOTICO v. ANA DEL VAL CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-18799 March 26, 1965 - JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-18359 March 26, 1965 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19582 March 26, 1965 - UY CHING HO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16773 March 30, 1965 - UP-TO-DATE SHIRT FACTORY v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-19694 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: LEONIDAS S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20013 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: DALMACIO CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 205 March 31, 1965 - CANDIDO SAN LUIS v. BENJAMIN B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13719 March 31, 1965 - FILEMON PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14526 March 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14678 March 31, 1965 - JUAN SERRANO v. FEDERICO MIAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16441 March 31, 1965 - ALFREDO BOLLOZOS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16744 March 31, 1965 - SIMPLICIO ALINSONORIN v. MATEO M. CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17798 March 31, 1965 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18536 March 31, 1965 - JOSE B. AZNAR v. RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18725 March 31, 1965 - JOSE MA. LEDESMA v. FELIX VILLASEÑOR

  • G.R. No. L-18761 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMIRIL ASMAWIL

  • G.R. No. L-19142 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRECIO LUMAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-19482 March 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO D. UY v. JOSE R. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19868 March 31, 1965 - IGMIDIO CANOVAS v. BATANGAS TRANS. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20003-05 March 31, 1965 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAVINO SISICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20093 March 31, 1965 - CAPT. J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, ET AL. v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20151 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: LEE NG LE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20305 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: ANG TEE YEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20455 March 31, 1965 - NAZARIO CATUIZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20504 March 31, 1965 - NATIONAL DEV. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20558 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: MELITON O. GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21076 March 31, 1965 - WONG WOO YIU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21597 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO C. MONTE

  • G.R. No. L-22354 March 31, 1965 - KWOK KAM LIEN, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-22537 March 31, 1965 - EUSEBIO TAÑALA v. MARIANO LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22779 March 31, 1965 - HADJI LOMONTOD MACASUNDIG v. DIRUGUNGUN MACALANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23537 March 31, 1965 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23721 March 31, 1965 - R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24191 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. ADOLFO

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.